DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
Dated this the 19th day of August, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member Date of filing: 12/11/2019
CC/263/2019
Rahul R, - Complainant
S/o.late Radhakrishnan,
Manchira, Anamari (PO), Palakkad 678 506.
(Party in person)
Vs
Proprietor - Opposite Party
Bike Palace,
Multi Brand Used Bike Showroom,
Shoranur road, Nurani Junction
Palakkad.
(Advs.Sreejith Menon M & Sunitha K)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A.,Member
Pleadings of the complainant in brief.
1. The complainant purchased a second hand “Suxuki Scooty LETs 2015”from the opposite party’s showroom on 03.06.2019. The total cost of the bike was Rs.39,000/- of which Rs.22,200/- was handed over to the opposite party on the same day as advance amount. The opposite party did not issue any receipt for that. Balance of Rs.12,900/- was to be paid in 3 months with Rs.4300/- as monthly installment.
After the payment of advance amount, the very next day the opposite party’s mechanic delivered the vehicle to the complainant. The complainant did not get any chance to test drive the vehicle to know its condition. The opposite party delivered a fully rusted and damaged scooty to the complainant. . After two days of its purchase, the complainant could not even start the vehicle. Even though the complainant tried to return the scooty to the opposite party on that week itself, they refused to take it back. Because of the issues in the vehicle, the complainant was forced to take it to the mechanic for which he had to expend money and finally on 27th Sep 2019, he returned the vehicle to the opposite party.
The complainant requested them to take the rent for 3 months and return the balance amount paid by him, but the opposite party did not care to return the amount. So this complaint is filed to direct the opposite party to refund Rs.35,100/- together with Rs.12,000/- as compensation Rs.1000/- as bike repair charge and Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and pressure suffered by the complainant.
2. The complaint was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite party. They entered appearance and filed their version.
3. Pleadings of the opposite party in their version.
The opposite party denied the entire averments in the complaint. The opposite party contended that he has not sold any vehicle to the complainant. The complainant along with one Mr.Anand approached the opposite party for arranging finance for the purchase of a vehicle KL-14-R-7570 Suzuki LETS, two wheeler. The opposite party had given finance of Rs.21,500/- for the purchase of the vehicle which is to be repaid in 5 monthly installments of Rs.4300/- per month. The complainant repaid only three installments and balance of Rs.8600/- together with default interest of Rs.2500/- is due from him. The opposite party approached him for the amount, but he did not repay it and falsely made a complaint before the North Police station, Palakkad and on knowing the true facts, they did not take any action.
The complainant approached the Forum without disclosing the actual facts and he has not produced any evidence to show that the opposite party had sold the vehicle to him. The opposite party is not a party to the complaint in any manner and it is not maintainable against him. The complainant should approach the actual seller of the vehicle, if he has any problem with the vehicle. The opposite party is not liable for the loss or damage incurred by the complainant as he is not a party to the sale agreement and no role to play in the agreement entered and signed by the complainant with one Mr. Anand. There is no Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party is an unnecessary party to the complaint and it is not maintainable against him and it has to be dismissed with cost of the opposite party.
4. From the pleading of both parties, the following points arises for consideration.
1. Whether the complainant had succeeded in proving that he purchased the vehicle from the opposite party?
2. Whether there is any Deficiency in service/Unfair Trade Practice on the part of opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought?
4. Reliefs, if any as cost and compensation.
5. Complainant filed proof affidavit in evidence and Ext.A1 to A5 marked. The
opposite party did not file proof affidavit and evidence closed.
Point No 1
6. The complaint averment is that the complainant purchased a second hand vehicle from the opposite party for an amount of Rs.39,000/- of which he paid Rs.22,200/- as advance amount and paid Rs.12,900/- in 3 months with installments of Rs.4300/- per month. But the vehicle which was delivered to him was fully affected with rust and it was not in a usable condition and he didn’t get an opportunity to test drive it before purchasing.
7. The opposite party after denying the entire averments, contended that they did not sell the vehicle to the complainant, but only financed for the purchase of the vehicle KL-14-R-7570 Suzuki LETS, two wheeler.
They have given finance of Rs.21,500/- for the purchase of the vehicle which is to be repaid in 5 installments of Rs.4300/- per month of which the complainant paid only 3 installments and the balance together with default interest is still due from the complainant. They further contended that the actual sale agreement is between the complainant and one Mr.Anand in which the opposite party has no role and they are unnecessarily made party to the complaint.
8. Even though the opposite party produced the copy of the sale agreement between the complainant and one Mr. Anand, it was not marked as they did not file any proof affidavit and they were continuously absent for several postings.
9. Complainant produced 3 receipts which is marked as Ext A1 which shows
the payment of Rs.4300/- each in the name of ‘BIKE PALACE’, the opposite
party. Ext A3 and A4 are the copies of the RC and insurance policy in the
name of original owner “Mariyamma” Ext A5 is the pass Book ‘HIRE RENTAL
PAYMENTS’ in which no entry is made. The account name and details
mentioned in the last page of the book is that of the opposite party.
10. Other than these documents, complainant has not produced any Documents
showing the payment of advance amount of Rs.22,200/- to the opposite party,
but only stated that the opposite party has not given receipt for the payment
and delivered the vehicle as soon as the initial payment is made.
11. When the opposite party has denied the contention of the complainant that he
purchased the vehicle from the opposite party, the burden is on the complainant to prove the same by adducing cogent oral or documentary evidence. No document was produced showing the purchase of the vehicle from the opposite party and no attempt was made from the part of the complainant to cross examine the opposite party to prove his contentions. So the complainant has failed to prove that he bought the vehicle from the opposite party.
Points 2 , 3 & 4
12. The complainant’s contention is that as the vehicle was not in usable condition, he returned the vehicle to the opposite party on27.11.2019 and demanded for the refund of the amount paid by him after deducting 3 months usage charge. But no evidence is forthcoming regarding the defects of the vehicle and the return of the same to the opposite party. Hence the complainant has not substantiated his contentions of purchase of the vehicle from the opposite party, payment of advance amount and return of the vehicle by adducing reliable evidence other than mere submissions.
So even considering that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from the opposite party the complainant has failed to prove any Deficiency in service/ Unfair Trade Practice on their part of the opposite party by adducing sufficient evidence.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 19th day of August, 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Appendix
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Ext. A1–Deposit PAY-IN-SLIP issued by South Indian Bank (3 receipts)in the name of opposite party.
Ext.A2-Google reviews and U tube channel comments about Bike palace.Ext.A3-Copy of
Insurance, policy of the vehicle.
Ext.A4- Photocopy of RC of the vehicle KL 14 R 7570 in the name of Mariyamma,
Kasargod.
Ext.A5- Book of Hire Rental payments (Original)
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties: Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: Nil
